NACD Instructor standards violation

[The Chairman]

You mean like starting a thread in a public forum named "NACD Instructor standards violation" about an alleged incident that may have happened 2+ years ago, and then making no further comment about an investigation or its findings for a month and a half?

The best way to eviscerate a rumor is to hit it head on. Unfortunately, the rumor mongers just can't seem to let it go.

 

[victorzamora]

What are you talking about?

Who was removed as a TD?

How do you know they are "ready to release findings"?

Who told you "they can't release any more information until all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed."?

Dude, unless you have a lot more information than we have, you might want to consider to shut your cake hole.

He has a statement from Rick Murcar, actually. Would that help his position? Would that allow him to keep his cake hole open?

Rick hasn't indicated any direction, but has indicated a coming press release that is being delayed due to a stringent process that must be followed.

 

[nakatomi]

He has a statement from Rick Murcar, actually. Would that help his position? Would that allow him to keep his cake hole open?

I don't buy that he has a statement with any worthwhile information.

Other than that, please answer this:

Who was "removed" as TD?

Rick hasn't indicated any direction, but has indicated a coming press release that is being delayed due to a stringent process that must be followed.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there was another press release.

 

[victorzamora]

Other than that, please answer this:

Who was "removed" as TD?

That was certainly incorrect. However, it has been stated as truth before (rumor/conjecture) that Rob "stepping down" was more voluntold than volunteering. With the short delay between that announcement and the announcement of the investigation, and the time between Rick's "cleaning house" comments and Rob stepping down....there's certainly some evidence. Regardless, it's all conjecture and rumor and I agree that statement was simply false.

 

[nakatomi]

That was certainly incorrect. However, it has been stated as truth before (rumor/conjecture) that Rob "stepping down" was more voluntold than volunteering. With the short delay between that announcement and the announcement of the investigation, and the time between Rick's "cleaning house" comments and Rob stepping down....there's certainly some evidence. Regardless, it's all conjecture and rumor and I agree that statement was simply false.

You call the timing "evidence", you can't be serious?
Tom's claim that the NACD TD has been removed is nothing but slander at this point.
You guys are simply agitators in this soap opera, shame on you Victor and shame on Tom :-(

Let Rick finish his fact finding mission and stop stirring the pot until people have had a chance to sort this mess out.

 

[victorzamora]

You call the timing "evidence", you can't be serious?
Tom's claim that the NACD TD has been removed is nothing but slander at this point.
You guys are simply agitators in this soap opera, shame on you Victor and shame on Tom :-(

Let Rick finish his fact finding mission and stop stirring the pot until people have had a chance to sort this mess out.

Oliver, you're being ridiculous. I said it's purely circumstantial. With that having been said, it is technically evidence. Circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tbone1004]

1/2: Fair on removed as TD, though suspension would likely have at least temporarily removed him as TD until a decision was reached. So whether you resign 10 minutes before or after you get suspended is not particularly relevant. I changed TD to "instructor" so it is now accurate. NACD site has been down, so I can't look up the by-laws, but I'm pretty sure the TD has to be an active instructor, suspended doesn't count.

3: They are not ready because the ducks are not all in a row yet which is part of i's dotted and t's crossed in order to release findings. The first bit was confusing, but was meant to be that in something as public as this matter is, they have to make sure everything is ready to go before they are ready to release findings.

4: No one had to tell me, nor should they, it's obvious. This suspension has two very simple outcomes, instructor reinstated, instructor expelled. If the evidence is all circumstantial and they are going to reinstate them, then they have to make sure that everything is accounted for to prevent a lawsuit. We all saw the tax form from 2013, they can't afford one. If the evidence is concrete and they are going to expel, they have to make sure everything is dotted and crossed so there is no room for an appeal from the person in question, or a potential lawsuit for defamation of character or anything like that. "you caused me great personal and financial harm because your suspension was unwarranted and it cost me x-dollars of revenue so I'm suing you for lost wages" or anything like that. I'm not saying he would, but it is something they have to be cognizant about as it could set precedence which is bad.

The NACD had to publish the suspension, how can you not? They did it in a very professional manner, they opened no doors, gave no speculation. Simple statement "we got a complaint, we investigated a complaint. At the investigators recommendation and the report we decided to vote on whether to suspend the instructor. The vote was 3-1 in favor of suspension, instructor is suspended pending formal hearing." Very simple, we don't need any more information until they are ready. Nor should we get any official information until they are ready for lawsuit risk as stated above.

What was not stated in the statement was whether or not the suspension occurred prior to the vote or after and whether the two were related.. All we know is that it had been made known that there was a wish to resign on the 9th, the meeting was on the 11th, the official resignation was on the 12th, and the letter was published on the 15th. We may never officially know what his cause for resignation was as it would likely violate confidentiality agreements etc etc. If you think they could have said anything else until everything is locked down, you're not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were.

This is big enough that if they screw up and do it wrong, it could cause the organization to collapse, this is the biggest thing they have had to deal with in a very long time, and they just can't risk screwing it up. I don't care what the outcome is, I have no stake in the game, I have a bit more information than you might think I have, but that information has no bearing on how crucial it is that this is resolved with absolutely no room for appeal, because while I don't think he'd sue them, the risk is there, and they can't risk it.

Edit: typeo

 

[lv2dive]

OMG what grade is this? Is it really necessary to announce that someone else is getting ready to announce something?

 

[karstdvr]

OMG what grade is this? Is it really necessary to announce that someone else is getting ready to announce something?

I like the sticker I've seen,"Dive more, post less"

 

[tbone1004]

OMG what grade is this? Is it really necessary to announce that someone else is getting ready to announce something?

was just in response to Hetland on why it has been 6 weeks since the thread was started...